> Out-parameters are a terrible choice in C++

why? I personally love functions like `EResult function(const T1& inParam1, T2& outParam2)`. the function signature makes it obvious what the function does (or should do, at least) and it's easy to avoid accidental copying.

Code like that is the bane of my existence. Give me `T2 function(T1)` every time. Besides being overwhelmingly clearer, I can use it in just one line. The other needs at least 3, more commonly 5, lines packed around it, so less than 20% of your code actually does anything useful toward the problem it is supposed to solve. Five times longer means you have five times the bugs.

Besides being horrible style, operating on references cripples the optimizer. "Avoid accidental copying"? What good is that if it's slower than if you did the copy?

serious question: would you throw an exception if T2 cannot be created ? or use a variant data-type ? or something else altogether?

Generally, yes, throw.

Sometimes an optional is better, such as when downstream already takes one.

Occasionally, checking whether the operation (and a bunch of others) would succeed is best, particularly in high-rel/high-av systems. There, you are probably also logging, first, what you are about to attempt.

Use a variant type like llvm::Expected.

yup, that's what i thought. i generally tend to use a construct simiar to 'error_or' though. that wrapped within a macro (^^) makes the whole invokation quite bearable

> It is easy to tie yourself in knots by doing the complicated thing. The solution is to do the simple thing.

Good advice. Corollary: don't use tools that make it hard to do simple things, or force you to live with the not-simple things others have done.

My available choices for what I do are C++ and, theoretically, Rust.

Rust has the advantage of fewer legacy choices thrust upon it, although it is rapidly building up its own legacy. It is thus far less expressive, so I cannot capture as much meaning in a library. It is less mature, limiting its practical usability. It has some complications C++ lacks, some of which are unavoidable even in little programs.

By the time Rust is mature, it (including its milieu) will be as complicated as C++ is today, with as many legacy boat anchors. But it will be as expressive and as practically useful, and I will have two choices of commensurate standing. For now, C++ is really all we have.

It all traces back to the destructor: the original innovation that makes the rest possible. Rust's Drop trait fills the identical role. Nothing else has it.

How do I deal with C++'s complexity? I stay the hell away from things that are too hard to understand. It's not hard. The most useful parts of the language are simple when used right.